Also known as: ultimate question of fact · ultimate facts · ultimate fact
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
An issue of fact necessarily resolved by a valid and final criminal judgment. When a jury acquits a defendant after deciding such an issue in the defendant's favor, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the state from relitigating the same factual question in a later prosecution even if the charges involve different victims or statutory counts.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Ulysses Usher was tried for robbing one victim during a single masked holdup. The jury acquitted after the only disputed question was whether Ulysses was the masked gunman. Prosecutors then charged him with robbing a second victim minutes later in the same incident and planned to use the identical surveillance footage. The second prosecution cannot proceed because the prior acquittal already resolved the factual question of identity.
Ulric Unger was acquitted of robbing the first victim in a two-victim holdup when identity was the sole contested issue. Prosecutors later charged him with robbing the second victim and intended to rely on the same eyewitness and footage. The Double Jeopardy Clause bars relitigation of the ultimate question of fact already decided in Ulric's favor.
Uma Underwood was acquitted of felony murder after the jury necessarily found she lacked the required intent. The state then brought a new prosecution for the lesser offense of manslaughter arising from the same incident. The prior resolution of the ultimate question of intent prevents relitigation under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Union Steel was acquitted of conspiracy after the jury found he had not joined the charged agreement. Prosecutors then indicted him for a substantive drug offense that required proof of the same agreement. The Double Jeopardy Clause precludes relitigating the ultimate question of fact resolved by the acquittal.
Ulysses Ulrich was acquitted of assaulting the first participant in a fight when identity was the only disputed fact. The state later charged him with assaulting a second participant using the identical evidence. The prior acquittal resolved the ultimate question of fact and the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the new case.
Umeko Uchida was tried for robbery after an earlier acquittal on a related charge arising from the same masked incident. The prosecution sought to introduce testimony from the first trial that placed her at the scene. The court considered whether admitting that evidence would require relitigating an ultimate fact already resolved in her favor.
A factual issue qualifies when the jury necessarily decided it in the defendant's favor to reach the acquittal. Identity is the classic example because every element of the charged offense requires proof that the defendant was the perpetrator. Once the jury resolves that question against the state, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents relitigation even if the new charge names a different victim or statutory offense.
Supporting sources
…appeared in the Federal Equity Rules adopted in 1912. See Fed. Equity Rule 25 (requiring “a short and simple statement of the ultimate facts upon which the plaintiff asks relief, omitting any mere statement of evidence”). A difficulty arose, however, in that the Field Code and its progeny required a plaintiff to plead “facts”…
…the device must not undermine the factfinder's responsibility at trial, based on evidence adduced by the State, to find the
…fact fairly to resolve conflicts in the testimony, to weigh the evidence, and to draw reasonable inferences from basic
…quite distinct from that which the Court attributes to it. Judge Weinstein, for example, defines as synonymous the words "ultimate fact
…equal protection of the law it is only essential that there shall be some rational connection between the fact
No. The Double Jeopardy Clause's collateral estoppel component is not defeated by later-discovered evidence or a new theory. Once the jury has finally determined the ultimate factual issue in the defendant's favor, the state receives only one opportunity to prove that fact.
Supporting sources
The court examines the entire record of the prior proceeding, including the pleadings, evidence presented, arguments of counsel, jury instructions, and the general verdict. If the acquittal can rationally be explained only by a finding in the defendant's favor on the disputed fact, that finding receives preclusive effect.
Supporting sources
Yes, provided the same ultimate factual issue must be relitigated. When identity was the only contested question in the first trial and the second prosecution rests on the identical evidence and theory, the prior acquittal precludes the state from proving the defendant was the perpetrator again.
Supporting sources